IN REPLY 

REFER TO 

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060·6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION 

December 12, 2012 

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Supply Process Review Committee 

Meeting 12-03, November 8, 2012 

The attached minutes of the DLMS Supply PRC Meeting (12-03) are forwarded for your 

information and action as appropriate. 

The DLA Logistics Management Standards points of contact are Ms. Ellen Hilert, 

(703) 767-0676, DSN 427-0676; or email ellen.hilert@dla.mil, Ms. Mary Jane Jolmson, 

(703) 767-0677; or email mary.jane.johnson@dla.mil, and Ms. Heidi Daverede, (703) 767-5111 

or email heidi.daverede@dla.mil. 

Director 

DLA Logistics Management 

Standards Office 

Attachment 

As stated 

cc: 

ODASD(SCI) 

SupplyPRC 

Attendees 

ODASD DP AP (PDI) 

Joint Small Arms/Light Weapons Coordinating Group (JSNL WCG) 

Federal Recycling Program G Printed on Recycled Paper 
IN REPLY 

REFER TO 

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BEL.VOIR, VIRGINIA 22060.6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

December 12, 2012 

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Supply Process Review Committee 

(PRC) Meeting 12-03, November 7, 2012 

Purpose: The DLA Logistics Management Standards Office hosted the subject meeting at the LMI 

Government Consulting Office in McLean, Virginia. Specific discussion topics are noted below. A 

list of attendees and briefing materials are available on the Supply PRC Webpage: 

www.dla.mil/j-6/d1mso/Archives/a:rchives sprc.asp (refer to hyperlinks from the meeting agenda for 

briefings). 

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert, Co-chair, DOD Supply PRC/DOD MILS TRIP 

Administrator, Ms. Heidi Daverede, Co-chair, DOD Supply PRC/DOD MILSTRIP Alternate 

Administrator, and Ms. Mary Jane Johnson, Co-Chair, DOD Supply PRC/DOD MILSTRAP 

Administrator, facilitated discussion. Action items identified below are to be worked within 24 days 

of the date of tllis memorandum unless otherwise noted. 

Review of Meeting Topics: 

a. Item Unique Identification (IUID) Status Update. IUID implementation topics were 

addressed, including the UII and/or serial number on shipment status and supply discrepancy report 

transactions, and improvements to the automated data capture of the UII and/or serial number when 

preparing an Issue Release/Receipt Document (IRRD). 

(1) PDC 1030, Implementation of IUID in the DLMS Shipment Status Supporting 

DOD IUID Supply Procedures and Associated Supply Discrepancy Report Procedures. The 

IUID in Supply Business Processes briefmg by Ms. Hilert focused on the key parts ofPDC 1030 to 

include IUID data (unique item identifier (UII) and/or serial number) in the DLMS shipment status 

and Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR) transactions. The brief identified shipment status and SDR 

scenarios when and how IUID data should be carried; it also addressed the enhanced functionality of 

the shipment status to maintain positive control and visibility of IUID content in multiple freight 

piece sllipments. PDC 1030 is consistent with the draft Integrated Requirements Set (IRS) ODASD 

(SCI) is developing. PDC 1030 addresses MILSTRIP (DD 1348-lA) and non-MILSTRIP (DD 

1149) shipments. The PDC proposes passing both UII and/or serial number in all sllipment status 

transactions when available. The PDC specifically identifies that the DOD Dish·ibution Depot 

sllipping process will not stop for lack of IUID data on items with an IUID Indicator Yes (Y). There 

is no requirement for the sllipping activity to opening boxes when the UII is not on the outside or 

systenlically available. PDC 1030 was released on October 11, 2012 and Component responses 

were originally due on November 26, 2012; however extensions were granted into December. Two 

discussion items relevant to the IUID Indicator were clarified. First, the receiving process will 

continue to follow the existing process to check for IUID marking on (new procurement) receipts. 

Federal Recycling Program G Printed on Recycled Paper 
Second, aN avy representative (SPA WAR) asked about the relevance of the Controlled Inventory 

Item Code (CIIC) and how the IUID indicator impacts the CIIC. It was noted that the IUID 

Indicator is separate and the CIIC would be a factor in determining the setting of the IUID Indicator 

to Yes (Y). The IUID Indicator to be made available in the Federal Logistics Information System 

(FLIS) Master Data Capability (MDC) and later fully integrated into cataloging data will provide a 

single source to determine if a stock number falls under the IUID management requirements. The 

determination for the IUID applicability is a collaborative decision among the Components 

participating in the DOD IUID work group. GSA advised that currently there are no immediate 

plans to implement Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) for GSA Direct Vendor Delivery shipments, so 

there may be a need to modify the proposed procedures for inclusion of Ulls on the 856S for DVDs 

when sourced by a GSA vendor. 

(a) Process Gap for Shipment Status in Response to a Follow-Up: The ICP will 

follow existing MILSTRIP procedures to prepare the status transaction based on the Materiel 

Release Confirmation (MRC) (DLMS 945A), which will not include the UII and/or serial number at 

this time. This is a recognized gap for IUID content on the shipment status. A significant systems 

change would be required to direct the follow-up inquiry to the shipping activity vice the ICP for 

DOD shipments in order to support retransmission the original shipment status with Ulls and/or 

serial number. 

(b) Multiple Freight Pieces. PDC 1030 addresses multiple freight pieces, where a 

single shipment status reflects materiel that is shipped in more than one box thereby allowing 

association of passive RFID with a particular box. The shipment status transaction currently 

provided for this type of shipment is not distinguishable, since the Transportation Control Number is 

the same on each and no box identification is provided. The revised 856S shipment status 

transaction will also provide visibility of UIIs by box and the box count. This will further support 

receipt process by UII and passive RFID, as well as identification ofUII items when a box is 

missing. Implementation of this change will require that the shipping activity identify the Ulls 

during the pack process by specific box so that this information can be perpetuated to the shipment 

status. This change will enhance visibility of materiel, particularly for DLA. 

(c) Supply Discrepancy Reports for IUID. PDC 1030 addresses the SDR reporting 

requirements associated with mismatches between shipment status, documentation, and the materiel 

received, as well as the desire not to trigger SDRs prematurely based solely on the IUID Indicator. 

Pending full implementation ofiUID policy, SDRs are not to be used to report lack of IUID content 

on shipment status, items, or packaging on shipments originating from a DOD activity based solely 

on IUID Indicator Y. PDC 1030 includes an SDR decision matrix to determine when to submit an 

SDR for missing, overage, incorrect, or mismatched IUID data for items identified by a NSN with 

IUID IndicatorY. A new data element is established to indicate whether the IUID content in the 

SDR is applicable to materiel received or not received (missing). During the discussion, Ms. Hilert 

stressed the importance of integrating the receiving and SDR systems to facilitate reporting of 

discrepancies where IUID data, UII and/or serial number, is perpetuated systemically. 

(2) PDC 399A, Automated Data Capture for Serialized Item Shipments and 

Preparation of the Issue Release/Receipt document IRRD (DD Form 1348-lA or DD Form 

1348-2) Continuation Page. ADC 399 established requirements and procedures to identify 

significant shipment data and the Ulls/serial numbers for multiple items within Portable Data File 

417 (PDF417) 2D bar code(s) on the IRRD. It also identified procedures for using an IRRD 

Attachment, 

Page2 
continuation page for Macro PDF 417 bar codes and a separate requirement for using Code 39 linear 

bar codes to identify all applicable serial numbers. PDC 399A is a proposed addendum to ADC 399 

to update the language and data encoding procedures to improve content of the IRRD. Ulls and 

serial numbers would be encoded and linked together, when they are machine readable and readily 

available, or when retrievable from the system generating the shipping form. To establish the 

relationship between a specific UII and its associated serial number, the PDC uses a new technical 

approach (ISO/IEC 15434 Format 06 envelopes) to "bracket" the UII and serial number for each 

item within the 2D bar code(s) and it removes the ADC 399 requirement to link a UII to the serial 

number used to derive the UII (data identifier (DI) 42S). Jim Weiner (DLA DDC J6N) raised a 

question on how the depot will obtain IUID data when the materiel does not physically move but 

does change ownership (referred to as ship-in-place scenario). Ms. Hilert noted that ownership 

changes such as this are not addressed in the PDC and will require further discussion to determine if 

a suitable process can be identified. 

• ACTION: Component comments for PDC 1030 and PDC 399A were due on November 

26, 2012 and November 12, 2012, respectively. Projected implementation dates for both 

PDCs are required in the Component PDC response. 

• ACTION: DLA to explore feasibility of obtaining Ulls and/or serial numbers in the 

Distribution Depot "ship-in-place" scenario. 

b. Government Furnished Property (GFP) Update. Several briefings and two Approved 

DLMS Changes (ADCs) affecting GFP were addressed. The significant discussions are identified in 

the following subsections: 

(1) GFP Briefing Overview. Ms. Hilert provided an overview of GFP under 

MILSTRIP/DLMS and identified two key DLMS Changes that will support management of GFM. 

The key changes are Materiel Receipt Acknowledgment (MRA) /Receipt, and perpetuation of GFP 

Contract Data from Requisitioning and GFM Validation Process through Shipment Status. 

(a) ADC 390 revised the DLMS 527R Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement 

(MRA) to require the contract number (and call/order number, when applicable) of the DOD 

contract that authorized the contractor to receive GFM or CFM as applicable, on transactions 

associated with GFM and CFM. This requirement is applicable to both pushed and pulled GFM and 

also to contractor receipts when appropriate for intra-Service use such as Navy contractors using the 

Commercial Asset Visibility (CA V) System to report receipts to the Navy ICP. Contracting Officers 

must ensure the new requirement is implemented in contracts for contractors that receive 

GFM/CFM, or for materiel control activities (MCAs) preparing MRAs on behalf of contractors. A 

report is available on the DLA Transaction Services reports site that identifies the "Percent of 

Delinquents Summary Report- Contractor" . Some of the statistics in this report are misleading as 

some contractors use the DLMS 527R Receipt rather than the DLMS 527R MRA. 

Attachment, 

Page 3 
• ACTION: Components are requested to provide implementation dates for ADC 390. 

• ACTION: DLMSO to work with the Supply PRC and DLA Transaction Services to 

revise the MRA Delinquency Report criteria as needed to more accurately portray the 

MRA statistics for contractors given that Navy contractors using CAV report GFM to the 

Navy ICP using a Receipt transaction rather than an MRA. 

(b) ADC 1014 revised procedures to include contract data in transactions 

associated with GFP and the MCA validation of CFM requisitions. DLMS compliant GFP 

requisitions (DLMS 511R) will carry the 13-position DFARS contract number, the call/order 

number and CLIN when applicable. This eliminates the abbreviated contract number used in 

MILS TRIP and eliminates the option for use of a manufacturing directive number (MDN) instead of 

the contract number on DLA contractor GFP requisitions. This change requires the GFP requisition 

contract information be perpetuated through the MCA GFP Validation process and be included on 

requisitions forwarded to the Source of Supply (SoS). For stock shipments, the SoS will perpetuate 

the GFP contract information to the Materiel Release Order (MRO) transaction (DLMS 940R) sent 

to the shipping activity and the shipping activity or SoS, as applicable, will perpetuate the GFP 

contract information to the DLMS shipment status transaction (DLMS 856S) where it can be 

captured for update of the GFP module of the IUID Registry. 

• ACTION: Components are requested to provide implementation dates for ADC 1014. 

(2) OSD GFP Overview. Mr. Dave Guinasso (contractor support to OSD (AT&L) 

DPAP PDI) provided a briefing on issues relating to GFP. Key GFP concerns from the OSD 

perspective are, "What do we own, where it, and what is it worth?" It is believed that a high volume 

of GFP is not accounted for and recent audits have identified the need for improved record keeping 

with infusion of technology to capture information about GFP. One example cited was the 

movement of GFP items from one contract to another with no visibility. There is an ongoing effort 

to synchronize the GFP policy based on 19 business rules identified in his presentation. The DPAP 

office has worked with the Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) to enhance visibility of GFP by 

incorporating GFP processes in the procurement strategy. Mr. Guinasso addressed extracting GFP 

items from contracts to create visibility and stressed the support for using standard transactions for 

enhanced visibility. The vision is to use technology to enable the capture information about property 

and follow its movement between the Government and the contractor. Four Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) and eight Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DF ARS), changes 

have been completed and several more are planned. Other accomplishments this year include 

publishing a GFP instruction, Standard Operating Procedures, and a guide book. A preference was 

noted to use electronic transactions to record shipments currently documented on the DD 1149 form. 

Ms. Hilert noted that the DD 1149 is mapped to the DLMS 856S Shipment Status when used for 

transshipments through a Distribution Depot and will include the UII and serial number when 

available. A concern was noted for holding up shipments because there is no "acceptor" at the shipto location. Mr. Guinasso indicated that acceptance issues have the largest impact on prompt 

payment interest penalties in DOD. Ms. Hilert noted that DLA has been reluctant to provide 

destination acceptance for direct vendor delivery shipments in the past and asked for clarification on 

how the planned requirement for identification of an acceptor for all destination acceptance 

shipments will be applied without causing negative operational impact? 

Attachment, 

Page 4 
(3) DLA GFP Reparable Item Property Transfer Interim Solution. Ms. Beth Altman 

(DLA J335) provided a briefing on the DLA GFP interim solution to use the Wide Area Workflow 

(WA WF) and Depot Standard System (DSS) interface for GFP property transfers using the DLMS 

856 Advance Shipment Notice (ASN) and DLMS 527R Receipt. This procedure involves vendor 

shipment upon acceptance of a repair service and receipt of reparable items when shipped to a DSS 

depot for storage. The contractor prepares a Reparable Receiving Report to obtain acceptance and 

then W A WF uses a property transfer document to execute the movement of the reparable to the 

storage activity. The interim solution will have the GEX translate the WA WF property transfer 

document into the 856 ASN format which DSS can process. Upon receipt of the item DSS will 

prepare the DLMS 527R Receipt (Document Identifier Code D4M) which the GEX will translate 

into the 856 GFP Property Transfer Receipt to update the W A WF record and the DOD IUID and 

GFP Registries. Ms. Hilert noted that the interim solution is targeting the only reparable items 

shipped from the repair contractor (not new procurement or other types of shipments). This interim 

solution helps address the Financial Improvement Audit Readiness (FIAR) requirement to improve 

DOD property accountability. 

• ACTION: Recommend the Military Services review this interim capability to see if 

similar interim procedures might be helpful in their respective business processes. 

c. DOD EMALL/Funds Control Interface. The update on the DOD EMALL/Funds Control 

Interface and status ofDLMS 527R MRA implementation in EMALL was provided by Mr. John 

Ulrich, DLA. EMALL delayed the implementation to migrate the MRA reporting requirement from 

the 861 to the DLMS 527R; they encountered an issue with DLA's EBS on reporting ofMRAs for 

non-medical items. In December, 2011, DLA Electronic Business System (EBS) was unable to 

accept the non-medical DLMS 527R. Ms. Hilert suggested coordination with Mr. Bill Shaffer (DLA 

J33), since EBS has the capability to receive a standard DLMS 527R for the MRA; it was unclear 

what issues were involved at the time ofthe meeting. Relating to the GCSS-Army implementation 

of the Funds Control Module (FCM), a concern was noted regarding a proposal to develop a separate 

point-to-point FCM for GCSS-Army in lieu of using the one that is already implemented for Army 

inEMALL. 

• ACTION: Marine Corps to submit PDC with any required modifications to the standard 

FCM to enable implementation by the Marine Corps. 

• ACTION: Army to submit PDC with any required modifications to the standard FCM to 

enable implementation by GCSS-Army. 

• ACTION: DLA and EMALL team to clarify issues associated with the transaction from 

the 861 to the DLMS 527R MRA and submit a PDC if there is a requirements gap. 

Subsequent to the meeting, it was indicated that the primary issue involves preparation of 

the MRA for multi-line orders recorded directly with a vendor (under a DLA prime 

vendor/tailored vendor relationship program) and reported to DLA on the 850. 

d. International Standards Organization (ISO)/Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes 

(GENC) Country Code. Ms. Samantha Khuon provided an overview on the status of the GENC 

implementation. The Country Code Working Group (CCWG) continues to work on the migration 

from the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 10-4 country code standard to the use of 

ISO 3166-1. CCWG developed GENC to fill in the missing entries left in the wake of the departing 

Attachment, 

Page 5 
FIPS 10-4. OSD was drafting a revised memorandum to postpone the implementation of GENC to 

September, 2013; however, subsequent to the Supply PRC meeting, all indications are that the 

revised implementation date will be identified by NGA in the GENC Implementation Plan. ADC 

448B (Delayed Implementation for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 3166-1 

Codes for the Identification of Countries and their Subdivisions) was issued by DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Office to notify the implementers of GENC about the delay from the original 

September, 2012 implementation target date. A concern was raised regarding the implementation 

timeline and the effect on systems under development, particularly for shipping labels. Approval 

was expected before the end of the year, but we do not expect required implementation before the 

mediation capability is in place to allow identification of a code in DOD that is not a recognized 

country. 

e. Accountability of Property To/From Maintenance (PMR/Shipment Status). 

(1) PDC 449 Revised MILSTRAP Procedures for Logistics Accountability During 

Maintenance - Disallows Logistics Use of Inventory Adjustment Transaction (DAC) for 

Physical Movement of Materiel from a Storage Activity to a Maintenance Activity. Under the 

Depot Maintenance Inter-Service Support Agreement (DMISA) concept, visibility of assets after 

receipt by another Component organic repair depot is an ongoing problem at some locations 

particularly while items are in the repair process. For example, the Marine Corps notes they lose 

visibility when sending some items to Army maintenance activities. 

(a) The Air Force concerns with lack of visibility during maintenance were addressed 

in a briefing by Ms. Merrita Briggs, Air Force Materiel Command. Ms. Briggs noted that for three 

Navy and one Marine Corps non-reporting DMISA repair sites collocated with a DSS storage 

facility, the Air Force D035A system does not have visibility when items ship. Their first indication 

is the MILS TRAP Document Identifier Code (DIC) D6 _receipt transaction. With no PMR from the 

repair site, retrograde tracking computations are extremely difficult. Ms. Briggs noted that there are 

two Navy sites (Crane, IN and Keyport, WA) where this process appears to be working and the 

required transactions are being received. 

(b) Mr. Jim Weiner, DLA Distribution, noted the depots use a pseudo Routing 

Identifier Code (RIC) for receipts. When they receive DMISA assets they flip the RIC to allow the 

local maintenance facility to incorporate items into local repair facility. Transactions get reported to 

the maintenance activity RIC, but the Air Force does not see it coming out of the maintenance sites. 

He also noted that systems operating at local sites may not be using a DLMS compliant system 

requiring workaround. 

(c) Ms. Emily Burt-Hedrick, Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP), noted 

that the DoDAACs identified in the Air Force briefmg are not the DoDAACs used for their Fleet 

Repair Centers even though some are associated with the sites noted. The Navy representative will 

talk to the Commercial Asset Visibility - Organic Repair Module and Electronic Retrograde 

Management System (eRMS) contacts to clarify. 

Attachment, 

Page 6 
(d) Ms. Hilert noted that the Air Force owner should be getting a condition code 

change and, apparently, they are neither getting that nor the issue transactions (D7B) from the nonreporting sites. Ms. Hilert noted that the DMISA site should also be creating the shipment status 

transaction to the depot and Ms. Johnson noted the PMR should be created in advance and updated 

as necessary (vice created at the point when the repaired item is ready to be returned to the depot). 

(e) PDC 449 is related as it addresses discontinuing use of an inventory adjustment 

for supply condition code change (MILSTRAP 947VDAC) as a method to record physical 

movement of an item between a storage activity and a maintenance activity. Ms. Johnson noted the 

need for a joint JPIWG/Supply PRC meeting to address questions and concerns associated with this 

change proposal, and that a meeting would be planned to address other concerns with 

accountability/visibility during maintenance such as those Air Force raised. A focused meeting (by 

phone and DCO) will be scheduled for late January 2013. 

• ACTION: Air Force to identify the sites where this process appears to be working and 

the transactions being used with a process summary. 

• ACTION: PRC leads to review current procedures and research enhancements planned 

under modernization in preparation for the planned meeting. 

• ACTION: Target January for the meeting with the JPIWG and Supply PRC on PDC 449 

comment/resolution as well as identification/discussion of transactions being used when 

moving assets between maintenance and storage activities. Topics to include: current 

process, root cause for the lack of owner visibility, and future plans. 

(2) MILSTRAP DIC DZC Transaction. The second issue addressed by the Air Force was 

the DZC transactions being used to change ownership between Services. The DZC transaction does 

not feed the required systems. Ms. Johnson noted this is not a correct means to change ownership as 

DZC is for use with logistics reassignment only. Ms. Hilert noted that DLA has issued revised 

guidance not to use the DZC for this purpose based on clarification during the Joint Physical 

Inventory Working Group (JPIWG) meeting. Ms. Briggs clarified that these transactions are still 

originating from the Service side not the DSS side. 

• ACTION: DOD Components and DLA will distribute and enforce guidance to 

discontinue the unauthorized use of DIC DZC transaction when changing item ownership 

not associated with logistics reassignment. The offending depots causing Army problems 

are Corpus Christi and Tobyhanna. 

f. Status of Update on Defense Logistics Manuals (DLMs) and combining the Defense 

Logistics Standard System (DLSS) and DLMS Manuals. Mr. Paul Jensen, DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Office, provided the committee with an update on the status of initiatives to 

re-issue the DOD 4000.25 family of manuals as DLMs and then combine the legacy MILSTRIP and 

MILSTRAP manuals into Volume 2 of the DLM 4000.25 DLMS manual. DOD Instruction 4140.01 

was signed in December, 2011 and directed publication of the DOD 4000.25 family of manuals as 

DLMs within 180 days. All un-published ADCs were incorporated in the respective manuals and 

the DLMs were published incrementally between April, 2012 and early June, 2012. We are now 

about to publish Formal Change 1 to the DLMs; it includes approximately 12 ADCs issued since the 

DLMs were initially issued. There is an effort under way to combine the MILSTRIP and 

Attachment, 

Page 7 
MILSTRAP manuals into DLMS Volume 2. This approach is being pursued because the level of 

effort required to maintain two closely related sets of manuals is resource intensive. Use of legacy 

80rp terminology will be maintained. The effort to combine the MILSTRIP and MILSTRAP 

manuals with DLMS Volume 2 is projected to be completed in 2013. 

g. Component Updates (DLMS Implementation Status). Brief update comments were 

provided by the following Components: 

• Navy. Implemented the fmancial system at most Systems commands and some major 

activities. Implemented the single supply solutions at Navy Supply centers. Retired 

numerous legacy systems. BP28 afloat systems are next and are determining who has 

responsibility for sustainment, NA VSUP Business Systems Center or SPA WAR. Single 

Supply Baseline (SSB) is intended to replaceR-Supply Afloat which is a MILS based 

system. The timeline for this replacement was not identified but probably will not be 

completed before 2017. The Navy has consolidated some independent systems into the 

B28 afloat systems. The new name is Naval Tactical Command Support System- Open 

Architecture (NTCSS-OA) SSB Base line. Some pieces of the parts functionalityfinancial inventory and logistics type items will be released in 2014 with other releases 

through 2017. 

• Marine Corps. Implementation of GCSS- MC is progressing. It will roll out to tactical 

units in December, 2012, followed by inventory control point and storage activities. 

• Defense Logistics Agency. 

o Auditability- DLA Auditability target is 2015. System changes and other issues that 

do not have a documented effect on auditability will be delayed. Approximately 1 OK 

man-hours of development work is already identified to support the auditability 

assertion requirements. 

o Working on DLA Energy Convergence over the next couple of years. 

o Declaring success on Reutilization Business Integration (RBI) for the DLA 

Disposition Services process integration into DLA EBS and DSS. A PDC for FMS 

requisitioning is pending. 

o Base Operating Supply System (BOSS) incorporating into EBS 

o Inventory Management and Stock Positioning (IMSP) Spiral 2 - Fleet Readiness 

Center (FRCs) scheduled for April2013 in San Diego. Ms. Hilert asked about the 

IMSP Rollback for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) site. Mr. Shaffer (DLA 

13311) noted that the IMSP rollback at NNSY removed all the IMSP enhancements. 

He noted there were some systems encountered that DLA was not aware of. The 

IMSP rollback at NNSY will need to be addressed at a future date as the present 

method is unsustainable. Focus is on implementing the remaining FRCs. 

Attachment, 

Page 8 
• ACTION: DLA to provide status on the PDC for RBI Requisitioning. 

• ACTION: DLA to provide status the IMSP rollback and what happened to the 

enhancements. 

• GSA. The Order Management System (DLMS-compliant) is replacing GSA's legacy 

FSS-19 and CSC systems. GSA is already capable of processing the DLMS 870S, 856S, 

and 869A. Next DLMS implementation focus is with the DLMS 511R and 527R. 

GSA's goal is to fully implement the DLMS by 2015. 

• USTRANSCOM- DTEB. USTRANSCOM is working on a coordinated response on 

the Single Line of Accounting (SLOA) PDC and Ms. Hilert requested they hold their 

comments until the revised fmal PDC is available. 

h. DOD 4140.01-M, "DOD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures" Update. 

Ms. Lora Conrad, (ODASD/SCI) updated the committee on draft DOD 4140.01-M. The manual is 

restructured as 11 volumes and the Washington Headquarters Service and first legal review is 

complete. The manual was released for formal Component coordination and the current suspense 

date is January 31,2013. The most significant changes are to Volume 5 (Distribution) customer 

collaboration, and dedicated truck. Verbiage about anti-counterfeit is woven throughout the manual. 

Ms. Conrad stressed the use of the formal comment form (SD 818, 2012 version). 

i. DLMs Change Status Report. Ms. Daverede briefed the committee on an enhanced tool 

being implemented to track the status ofDLMS changes. Previously, DLMS change status 

information was tracked using multiple documents: 1) a static Word document posted to the website, 

and 2) various internal documents. The new tool provides canned reports and an ad hoc reporting 

capability that uses drop down lists and filters. The tool is accessed from the DLA Logistics 

Management Standards Website: www.dla.miVj6/dlmso/eLibrarv/changes/Qtrly Status Rpts/DLMS Change Status Report Website.xlsx. 

The publicly available reports are: 

• DLMS Change Report 

• Component Response Report 

• Overdue Component Response Report 

• Component Implementation Status Report 

• Impacted DLM Publications Report 

• Impacted DLMS Supplements Report 

Attachment, 

Page 9 
j. DLMS Enhancement Report. Ms. Daverede reviewed an existing resource that can be used 

to identify new or enhanced capabilities available in the DLMS Supplements for exchanging 

information among logistics systems and enhancements that provide capability beyond the legacy 80 

record position transactions. Functional analysts and system developers should review the DLMS 

Enhancement Reports while changes to systems and applications are being developed to ensure they 

have an understanding of the enhanced capabilities enabled by the DLMS Supplements. The report 

is currently available at: www.dla.miVj-6/dlmso/eLibrary/changes/processchanges.asp. 

Wrap up. Ms. Hilert thanked the Components for their participation in the Supply PRC meeting. 

She noted that the plan for future Supply PRC meetings will continue to be smaller and more 

focused on individual topics and may use conference call/DCO rather than multi-day meetings. 

Is/ - --- · ----

ELLEN HILERT 

Co-Chair DOD Supply PRC 

Approved: .fO~.:......:.....-......,._..c.~c;_ DONALD C. PIPP 

Director, 

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office 

Attachment, 

Page 10